Should one adult be expected to found the life of another adult? That's basically what things like unemployment, social security, section 8 housing, ect... are doing. There forcing one adult to pay for the necessities of another. From that perspective I just don't see how anyone could justify me having to pay for somebody else's food or clothing. I personally know drug addicts who get unemployment checks and food stamps, is it b/c they can't get a job? Technically yes, but why can't they get a job? Because the look like crap and their high all the time. What are your thoughts on this?

Also is it unfair for one person say a wealthy business owner of famous singer to make more money than others?

At 8/28/2014 7:27:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:So, in this same vein, is it just for the presidet, politicians, and any government worker (teachers, judges, cops, etc) to be paid by others?

No because they are actually preforming a job. People who receive unemployment are literally getting paid to do nothing.

You said:Should one adult be expected to found the life of another adult?

How is literally paying the salary of someone not [funding] them?

Further, most people who get welfare or section 8 still have incomes, so it's not 100% funding, as you claim.Even unemployment, which is generally paid by the employer while someone is employed, is not funded in theory by the taxpayer.

However, 100% of the livelihood of a teacher is due to taxpayers funding them.So, besides the fact you are painting a broad brush, why are you okay with some people being funded?

At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

According to YYW, I bullied his cousin off the site breaking him down to tears. Where is the public admonishment thread demanding I am banned for my actions?

At 8/28/2014 7:27:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:So, in this same vein, is it just for the presidet, politicians, and any government worker (teachers, judges, cops, etc) to be paid by others?

No because they are actually preforming a job. People who receive unemployment are literally getting paid to do nothing.

You said:Should one adult be expected to found the life of another adult?

How is literally paying the salary of someone not [funding] them?

Further, most people who get welfare or section 8 still have incomes, so it's not 100% funding, as you claim.Even unemployment, which is generally paid by the employer while someone is employed, is not funded in theory by the taxpayer.

However, 100% of the livelihood of a teacher is due to taxpayers funding them.So, besides the fact you are painting a broad brush, why are you okay with some people being funded?

Again if a person is providing a service and I pay them a fair wage I don't really see that as me funding them because they earned it. I guess I should have made it more clear that my issue is with free riders not with people who work for there money.

At 8/28/2014 7:27:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:So, in this same vein, is it just for the presidet, politicians, and any government worker (teachers, judges, cops, etc) to be paid by others?

No because they are actually preforming a job. People who receive unemployment are literally getting paid to do nothing.

You said:Should one adult be expected to found the life of another adult?

How is literally paying the salary of someone not [funding] them?

Further, most people who get welfare or section 8 still have incomes, so it's not 100% funding, as you claim.Even unemployment, which is generally paid by the employer while someone is employed, is not funded in theory by the taxpayer.

However, 100% of the livelihood of a teacher is due to taxpayers funding them.So, besides the fact you are painting a broad brush, why are you okay with some people being funded?

Again if a person is providing a service and I pay them a fair wage I don't really see that as me funding them because they earned it. I guess I should have made it more clear that my issue is with free riders not with people who work for there money.

This wouldn't be an issue at all if it was a requirement to pay taxes to vote.

Crying about how much the Trump wall is going to cost is like a heroin addict complaining about how much the needles cost.

At 8/28/2014 7:27:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:So, in this same vein, is it just for the presidet, politicians, and any government worker (teachers, judges, cops, etc) to be paid by others?

No because they are actually preforming a job. People who receive unemployment are literally getting paid to do nothing.

You said:Should one adult be expected to found the life of another adult?

How is literally paying the salary of someone not [funding] them?

Further, most people who get welfare or section 8 still have incomes, so it's not 100% funding, as you claim.Even unemployment, which is generally paid by the employer while someone is employed, is not funded in theory by the taxpayer.

However, 100% of the livelihood of a teacher is due to taxpayers funding them.So, besides the fact you are painting a broad brush, why are you okay with some people being funded?

Again if a person is providing a service and I pay them a fair wage I don't really see that as me funding them because they earned it. I guess I should have made it more clear that my issue is with free riders not with people who work for there money.

And what if they are providing a service, but are not paid a fair wage?

At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

According to YYW, I bullied his cousin off the site breaking him down to tears. Where is the public admonishment thread demanding I am banned for my actions?

This wouldn't be an issue at all if it was a requirement to pay taxes to vote.

Should the majority of elderly not vote, in your opinion?

I really don't care if you pay a grand total of 1 penny a year in taxes.

The idea of contributing zero to the general welfare (taxes) of the country shouldn't give you a right to have a say about how the government spends that money. You must buy a share to have a say in the stockholders meeting.

Even in the case of a full blown charity (church) that does a service for the country without the payment of any income tax; that's a voluntary decision for that church to operate outside of mandated government charity. They should have no say in how mandated government welfare operates since they have chosen to operate outside of the government system.

Now I will admit that the government does SOME things that don't require the specific payment or distribution of taxes or services funded by taxxes (such as public puff speeches to boost morale), but the role of the government today has morphed largely into a power role that revolves around distribution. Taxes fund that role.

Asking people who have put no financial stock into the government to hold the government fiscally accountable is not going to work. If it is their money at stake (even if it is only a penny) there is at least a small chance of accountability. People vote selfishly, not like lobotomized robots. It's just a small step to ask people to put in something, even if it is one penny a year. Is that too much to ask for accountability? How can the right to vote imply any responsibility at all when the voter has nothing to risk?

Crying about how much the Trump wall is going to cost is like a heroin addict complaining about how much the needles cost.

At 8/28/2014 7:27:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:So, in this same vein, is it just for the presidet, politicians, and any government worker (teachers, judges, cops, etc) to be paid by others?

No because they are actually preforming a job. People who receive unemployment are literally getting paid to do nothing.

You said:Should one adult be expected to found the life of another adult?

How is literally paying the salary of someone not [funding] them?

Further, most people who get welfare or section 8 still have incomes, so it's not 100% funding, as you claim.Even unemployment, which is generally paid by the employer while someone is employed, is not funded in theory by the taxpayer.

However, 100% of the livelihood of a teacher is due to taxpayers funding them.So, besides the fact you are painting a broad brush, why are you okay with some people being funded?

I guess I should have specified that my issue is with free riders and not people who are paid by the government to preform a necessary service.

So to answer your question as to why I am ok with some people being paid by tax dollars and other not. Is that teachers, police officers, politicians, ect actually earn the money as opposed to people who get unemployment which is the exact opposite of earning the money.

At 8/28/2014 7:27:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:So, in this same vein, is it just for the presidet, politicians, and any government worker (teachers, judges, cops, etc) to be paid by others?

No because they are actually preforming a job. People who receive unemployment are literally getting paid to do nothing.

You said:Should one adult be expected to found the life of another adult?

How is literally paying the salary of someone not [funding] them?

Further, most people who get welfare or section 8 still have incomes, so it's not 100% funding, as you claim.Even unemployment, which is generally paid by the employer while someone is employed, is not funded in theory by the taxpayer.

However, 100% of the livelihood of a teacher is due to taxpayers funding them.So, besides the fact you are painting a broad brush, why are you okay with some people being funded?

Again if a person is providing a service and I pay them a fair wage I don't really see that as me funding them because they earned it. I guess I should have made it more clear that my issue is with free riders not with people who work for there money.

And what if they are providing a service, but are not paid a fair wage?

I do think that many government employee's such as teachers and cops are underpaid. We should take some of the money from the unemployment expenses and use it to boost the wages of hard working people.

At 8/28/2014 7:27:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:So, in this same vein, is it just for the presidet, politicians, and any government worker (teachers, judges, cops, etc) to be paid by others?

No because they are actually preforming a job. People who receive unemployment are literally getting paid to do nothing.

You said:Should one adult be expected to found the life of another adult?

How is literally paying the salary of someone not [funding] them?

Further, most people who get welfare or section 8 still have incomes, so it's not 100% funding, as you claim.Even unemployment, which is generally paid by the employer while someone is employed, is not funded in theory by the taxpayer.

However, 100% of the livelihood of a teacher is due to taxpayers funding them.So, besides the fact you are painting a broad brush, why are you okay with some people being funded?

I guess I should have specified that my issue is with free riders and not people who are paid by the government to preform a necessary service.

So to answer your question as to why I am ok with some people being paid by tax dollars and other not. Is that teachers, police officers, politicians, ect actually earn the money as opposed to people who get unemployment which is the exact opposite of earning the money.

You are still missing my point.There are people who work two jobs (more than 40 hours/wk) and still collect welfare.McDonalds only pays $8/hr.

You are making grand assumptions about "free riders", and painting too large a brush.

And, for the third time, unemployment is paid by EMPLOYERS. It is called unemployment insurance, it is a tax on the employer. The government only footed the bill recently due to the recession, and may have gone back to its original 26 week max.

At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

According to YYW, I bullied his cousin off the site breaking him down to tears. Where is the public admonishment thread demanding I am banned for my actions?

I do think that many government employee's such as teachers and cops are underpaid. We should take some of the money from the unemployment expenses and use it to boost the wages of hard working people.

So, if a teacher is also getting welfare because she has two kids and the husband up and left (or even died), she is a free loader?

At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

According to YYW, I bullied his cousin off the site breaking him down to tears. Where is the public admonishment thread demanding I am banned for my actions?

At 8/28/2014 7:27:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:So, in this same vein, is it just for the presidet, politicians, and any government worker (teachers, judges, cops, etc) to be paid by others?

No because they are actually preforming a job. People who receive unemployment are literally getting paid to do nothing.

You said:Should one adult be expected to found the life of another adult?

How is literally paying the salary of someone not [funding] them?

Further, most people who get welfare or section 8 still have incomes, so it's not 100% funding, as you claim.Even unemployment, which is generally paid by the employer while someone is employed, is not funded in theory by the taxpayer.

However, 100% of the livelihood of a teacher is due to taxpayers funding them.So, besides the fact you are painting a broad brush, why are you okay with some people being funded?

I guess I should have specified that my issue is with free riders and not people who are paid by the government to preform a necessary service.

So to answer your question as to why I am ok with some people being paid by tax dollars and other not. Is that teachers, police officers, politicians, ect actually earn the money as opposed to people who get unemployment which is the exact opposite of earning the money.

You are still missing my point.There are people who work two jobs (more than 40 hours/wk) and still collect welfare.McDonalds only pays $8/hr.

You are making grand assumptions about "free riders", and painting too large a brush.

And, for the third time, unemployment is paid by EMPLOYERS. It is called unemployment insurance, it is a tax on the employer. The government only footed the bill recently due to the recession, and may have gone back to its original 26 week max.

To be honest if someone is only making 8 per hour either they are lazy or their a high school/college student with very little work experience who most likely still lives with their parents. So should I pay them welfare? No I don't think I should, however if they have kids I'm not against paying a tax to provide for children who have less than capable parents, it's not the kids fault after all.

So an employer not only has to pay people that work for them but also people that don't work for them? That's some squirrelly logic there.

At 8/28/2014 7:10:43 PM, jkerr3 wrote:Should one adult be expected to found the life of another adult? That's basically what things like unemployment, social security, section 8 housing, ect... are doing. There forcing one adult to pay for the necessities of another. From that perspective I just don't see how anyone could justify me having to pay for somebody else's food or clothing. I personally know drug addicts who get unemployment checks and food stamps, is it b/c they can't get a job? Technically yes, but why can't they get a job? Because the look like crap and their high all the time. What are your thoughts on this?

Also is it unfair for one person say a wealthy business owner of famous singer to make more money than others?

The question is, in what kind of society you want to live. One where people help each other, or one where everybody only looks out for himself.

At 8/28/2014 7:27:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:So, in this same vein, is it just for the presidet, politicians, and any government worker (teachers, judges, cops, etc) to be paid by others?

No because they are actually preforming a job. People who receive unemployment are literally getting paid to do nothing.

You said:Should one adult be expected to found the life of another adult?

How is literally paying the salary of someone not [funding] them?

Further, most people who get welfare or section 8 still have incomes, so it's not 100% funding, as you claim.Even unemployment, which is generally paid by the employer while someone is employed, is not funded in theory by the taxpayer.

However, 100% of the livelihood of a teacher is due to taxpayers funding them.So, besides the fact you are painting a broad brush, why are you okay with some people being funded?

I guess I should have specified that my issue is with free riders and not people who are paid by the government to preform a necessary service.

So to answer your question as to why I am ok with some people being paid by tax dollars and other not. Is that teachers, police officers, politicians, ect actually earn the money as opposed to people who get unemployment which is the exact opposite of earning the money.

You are still missing my point.There are people who work two jobs (more than 40 hours/wk) and still collect welfare.McDonalds only pays $8/hr.

You are making grand assumptions about "free riders", and painting too large a brush.

And, for the third time, unemployment is paid by EMPLOYERS. It is called unemployment insurance, it is a tax on the employer. The government only footed the bill recently due to the recession, and may have gone back to its original 26 week max.

To be honest if someone is only making 8 per hour either they are lazy or their a high school/college student with very little work experience who most likely still lives with their parents. So should I pay them welfare? No I don't think I should, however if they have kids I'm not against paying a tax to provide for children who have less than capable parents, it's not the kids fault after all.

You are aware that median wage in America is about $34K, right?That means half of Americans working one job make less than $34K.$34K doesn't get you very far, especially if you have kids.

Further, please tell me how many people at your local fast food place or department store look like they are kids or lazy. Unskilled? Probably. Unhirable elsewhere? Maybe.

Again, you paint with a very ugly brush.I work at a call center and make $12/hr. Please, tell me how I am supposed to raise two kids on that, if pay is $2K/month, rent is $1K, food is $300, utilities are $100, etc.

Again, you paint with a very ugly brush.Tell me why these workers can't be forced to work there due to criminal pasts, discrimination, communication skills, etc.

So an employer not only has to pay people that work for them but also people that don't work for them? That's some squirrelly logic there.

Oh, you mean like employers paying social security taxes?I believe unemployment tax is about 4.2% of the first $7,000 per employee, and federal is about 0.6% on top of that. This is the money that is used to fund the unemployment insurance pools....like any insurance program.

At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

According to YYW, I bullied his cousin off the site breaking him down to tears. Where is the public admonishment thread demanding I am banned for my actions?

The question is, in what kind of society you want to live. One where people help each other, or one where everybody only looks out for himself.

That's a bit of a false dichotomy, and ignores the issue he is bringing up.Does Society = force?

Yes. You follow the rules or you get punished, you fit into society or you get cast out.Sure, you can do what is expected of you by your own decision, so that no actual force is necessary. But if you don't, you will be forced to succumb to the rules of the society.

If not, then why can't a society help each other, without being compelled by law to?

That would only work if the vast majority of people wanted to help, in which case there would be no law required.The fact that there is such a law indicates that not enough people (in the eyes of the society) are willing to do so.

What ever happened to fraternal societies that helped each other?

A fraternal society, as the name implies, depends on seeing each other as related, as family even. But you can't be close to millions of people.This reminds me of a quote by Joseph Stalin "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic".

Our minds simply don't work in such ways that we feel affectionate towards abstract number of people.Many may help person in the street when they actually meet, but few are emotionally touched when they read about 1000 people starving due to a drought 100 miles away.Over time, our society has acknowledged that fact and thus made it law to help those people through our taxes.

The question is, in what kind of society you want to live. One where people help each other, or one where everybody only looks out for himself.

That's a bit of a false dichotomy, and ignores the issue he is bringing up.Does Society = force?

Yes. You follow the rules or you get punished, you fit into society or you get cast out.Sure, you can do what is expected of you by your own decision, so that no actual force is necessary. But if you don't, you will be forced to succumb to the rules of the society.

If not, then why can't a society help each other, without being compelled by law to?

That would only work if the vast majority of people wanted to help, in which case there would be no law required.The fact that there is such a law indicates that not enough people (in the eyes of the society) are willing to do so.

You know what I meant.Further, are you suggesting that people didn't used to help each other en masse?

Remember when neighborhoods were a thing, and grandma lived at home helping raise the kids, and strangers were kind?Tell me, do you know your neighbors? And why would you, someone else will take care of them.

In either case, there is a moral hazard, and I am not sure which is better.Under one, people are forced to help those that abuse the system.The other is more limited, but abuse is far less likely to occur.

What ever happened to fraternal societies that helped each other?

A fraternal society, as the name implies, depends on seeing each other as related, as family even. But you can't be close to millions of people.This reminds me of a quote by Joseph Stalin "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic".

Our minds simply don't work in such ways that we feel affectionate towards abstract number of people.Many may help person in the street when they actually meet, but few are emotionally touched when they read about 1000 people starving due to a drought 100 miles away.Over time, our society has acknowledged that fact and thus made it law to help those people through our taxes.

Yeah, I get that.But, to paraphrase Scrooge:Why should I help directly, when government is on it?

At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

According to YYW, I bullied his cousin off the site breaking him down to tears. Where is the public admonishment thread demanding I am banned for my actions?

The question is, in what kind of society you want to live. One where people help each other, or one where everybody only looks out for himself.

That's a bit of a false dichotomy, and ignores the issue he is bringing up.Does Society = force?

Yes. You follow the rules or you get punished, you fit into society or you get cast out.Sure, you can do what is expected of you by your own decision, so that no actual force is necessary. But if you don't, you will be forced to succumb to the rules of the society.

If not, then why can't a society help each other, without being compelled by law to?

That would only work if the vast majority of people wanted to help, in which case there would be no law required.The fact that there is such a law indicates that not enough people (in the eyes of the society) are willing to do so.

You know what I meant.Further, are you suggesting that people didn't used to help each other en masse?

Remember when neighborhoods were a thing, and grandma lived at home helping raise the kids, and strangers were kind?Tell me, do you know your neighbors? And why would you, someone else will take care of them.

That is exactly the point I was trying to make. People will help each other, only if they care about the actual person. Neighbors, friends, family members, they help you, because you are not just an abstract number to them, but an actual person. And kind stranger din't help you pay your bills, did they?If the state would cancel all social welfare and correspondingly reduce taxes, do you think the majority of people would then donate the money they save? Or do you think they would spent it for themselves?

And what about poor neighborhoods? How are you supposed to help your neighbor if you don't have enough for yourself? How can grandma help with the kids, if her pension is so low that she has to work as well?

In either case, there is a moral hazard, and I am not sure which is better.Under one, people are forced to help those that abuse the system.The other is more limited, but abuse is far less likely to occur.

Abuse of social welfare is a relatively rare and harmless occurrence, though. Mostly because it is hard to make a living out of social welfare alone and very few people are satisfied with living of social welfare. Nonetheless, it is a problem worthy of debate, of course, but it is not this giant hole swallowing enormous amounts of tax payer money as some people would like you to believe.

But lets say the state abolishes all welfare programs and lowers taxes accordingly.

People are no longer forced to help.Many people who depend on help are now left without. Drastically worsening the situation for those individuals.The worse the situation is for those people, the more likely they are to rise up and rebel against the system. This leads to an increased crime rate and potentially to riots, terrorism or outright rebellion.Worsening the situation for everybody and increasing the need for police and military force, thus increasing the money spent on it and thus the amount of taxes people have to pay, or alternatively decreasing the amount of money spent on other things, like roads, schools, hospitals, etc..Further, if education isn't state founded, the kids of those poor people won't get one, which is not only creating a vicious circle of poverty, but also deprives the country of skilled labor, scientists, doctors, teachers, etc..Which means that you may won't save any money anyway, but have more violence in the country.

People are forced to pay anyway. Being a part of society always comes at a cost.

What ever happened to fraternal societies that helped each other?

A fraternal society, as the name implies, depends on seeing each other as related, as family even. But you can't be close to millions of people.This reminds me of a quote by Joseph Stalin "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic".

Our minds simply don't work in such ways that we feel affectionate towards abstract number of people.Many may help person in the street when they actually meet, but few are emotionally touched when they read about 1000 people starving due to a drought 100 miles away.Over time, our society has acknowledged that fact and thus made it law to help those people through our taxes.

Yeah, I get that.But, to paraphrase Scrooge:Why should I help directly, when government is on it?

Are you saying people would help more, if they weren't forced to do it via their taxes? Because I find that hard to believe.And on the other hand, why should you help directly, if the government is on it, as long as it does it correctly?If it doesn't help enough, maybe taxes are too low. If it uses them inefficiently, why would you abandon the whole system instead of reforming it to be more efficient?

At 8/28/2014 7:10:43 PM, jkerr3 wrote:Should one adult be expected to found the life of another adult? That's basically what things like unemployment, social security, section 8 housing, ect... are doing. There forcing one adult to pay for the necessities of another. From that perspective I just don't see how anyone could justify me having to pay for somebody else's food or clothing. I personally know drug addicts who get unemployment checks and food stamps, is it b/c they can't get a job? Technically yes, but why can't they get a job? Because the look like crap and their high all the time. What are your thoughts on this?

Also is it unfair for one person say a wealthy business owner of famous singer to make more money than others?

And I don't see why I should have to pay for other people's law enforcement. Can't afford a band of armed guards? Not my problem. No. It isn't. Unless you're Justin Bieber.:)

At 8/28/2014 7:10:43 PM, jkerr3 wrote:Should one adult be expected to found the life of another adult? That's basically what things like unemployment, social security, section 8 housing, ect... are doing. There forcing one adult to pay for the necessities of another. From that perspective I just don't see how anyone could justify me having to pay for somebody else's food or clothing. I personally know drug addicts who get unemployment checks and food stamps, is it b/c they can't get a job? Technically yes, but why can't they get a job? Because the look like crap and their high all the time. What are your thoughts on this?

Also is it unfair for one person say a wealthy business owner of famous singer to make more money than others?

And I don't see why I should have to pay for other people's law enforcement. Can't afford a band of armed guards? Not my problem. No. It isn't. Unless you're Justin Bieber.:)

First if people would really riot b/c the government stops sending them checks that they didn't earn it says something about the current state of America, and not something good I might add.

Secondly the police and the military are a part of the governments role to protect its citizens against domestic and foreign threats. It is not in any way comparable to welfare.